Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
While the United States of America is many things to many people, it is not as is popularly conceived a Democracy and it never has been. This view is not coming from a perspective of politics, but one of stark reality. The thinking of the overwhelming majority of our Founding Fathers, as embodied in the Constitution they wrote, was certainly not to give power to the masses. I don’t believe this point is in dispute by the majority of Constitutional experts, despite their various positions on the political spectrum. Most politicians with self-awareness and intelligence have always known that we are not a Democracy as a country, despite the fact that most also proclaim it to be a Democracy. The problem with what I just wrote is that defining Democracy is a very slippery process and as I will show, the word means very different thing to many different people.
Permit me to begin by defining Democracy in terms of the myth that has been created around it in American parlance: “Democracy represents both the Will and the Rule of the People over their government. As such it is the best form of government for all”. Whether we believe it or not all Americans have grown up under this national myth and its’ use is ubiquitous to both domestic and foreign policy. The many wars this country has fought were prosecuted in the interests of this myth of Democracy, whether in destroying the Axis in World War II to save the world, or to nurture its creation and existence in numerous foreign lands. A student of history understands that the reasons for the wars America has fought are far more complex and ultimately self-serving than protecting Democracy. Nevertheless, to initially go to war, a populace must be energized by the belief that it will be fought for a higher purpose, in order to send it young adults to fight and potentially die. This energy in America usually has come from a combination of the myth of protecting democracy and a general threat to all the people. The simple rubric in my lifetime and in the history before it, is that we are fighting for Democracy. I will explore this myth, so central to our lives of citizens and discuss its implications.
In viewing the wide-ranging definitions of democracy I’ll begin by looking at a list of some made by famous people as compiled by Professor William M. Reisinger, of the University of Iowa. He introduces his list with these words:
“The basic sense of democracy as a form of governance rests on its etymology as rule by the entire people rather than, as Shapiro puts it, by any “aristocrat, monarch, philosopher, bureaucrat, expert, or religious leader.” Beyond that, actual definitions of democracy come in all shapes and sizes. On the next page are a variety of others’ definitions for your perusal, presented in chronological order. Each emphasizes one or more things thought to be true about democracy: 1) it is a dangerous form of government; 2) it includes genuine competition for power; 3) it permits mass participation on a legally equal footing; 4) it provides civil and other liberties that restrict the sphere of state power within the society; or 5) it promotes widespread deliberation about how to make and enforce policy so as to promote the common good.” http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030142/DefinitionsOfDemocracy.html
Some of the definitions he gives follow:
“A constitution [or politeia] may be defined as ‘the organization of a city [or polis] in respect of its offices generally, but especially in respect of that particular office which is sovereign in all issues. . . . In democratic cities, for example, the people [demos] is sovereign. . . . [W]hen the masses govern the city with a view to the common interest, the form of government is called by the generic name . . . of ‘constitutional government’. . . . Democracy is directed to the interest of the poor [only, not to the interests of everyone–WR].” (Aristotle 1995, 97-101)
“Democracy [is] not majority rule: democracy [is] diffusion of power, representation of interests, recognition of minorities.” (John Calhoun, as paraphrased by Roper 1989, 63)
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” (H.L. Mencken, quoted in Danziger 1998, 155)
Democracy is “the substitution of election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.” (G.B. Shaw, quoted in Danziger 1998, 155)
“Democracy is “government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them . . . or by officers elected by them.” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1933)
“Democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the decision-making process.” (Schattschneider 1960, 141)
Democracy is “a state where political decisions are taken by and with the consent, or the active participation even, of the majority of the People. . . . [L]iberalism, though recognizing that in the last resort the ‘legal majority’ must prevail, tries to protect the minorities as it does the civil rights of the individual, and by much the same methods. . . . Liberal democracy is qualified democracy. The ultimate right of the majority to have its way is conceded, but that way is made as rough as possible.” (Finer 1997, 1568-1570)
“The fundamental idea of democratic, political legitimacy is that the authorization to exercise state power must arise from the collective decisions of the equal members of a society who are governed by that power.” Collective decisions can be either aggregative (based on counting preferences) or deliberative. “[A] decision is collective just in case it emerges from arrangements of binding collective choice that establish conditions of free public reasoning among equals who are governed by the decisions. In the deliberative conception, then, citizens treat one another as equals not by giving equal consideration to interests–perhaps some interests ought to be discounted . . .–but by offering them justifications for the exercise of collective power . . . .” (Cohen 1998, 185-6; italics in original)
These are eight of the twenty-five definitions that Reisinger listed. Just as he broke up these definitions into categories ranging from “dangerous” (dyspeptic) to positive views, I presented a selection from the entire range of views. The link to his article will bring you to a short piece, quickly read, that will give you the full range of choice of viewpoints. My particular preference is for the last two of the definitions, but I don’t believe that they currently define our system. For further, quick reference this Wikipedia link illustrates the difficulty of defining Democracy and the confusion everyone has had in doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
This illustrates the problem that America has with Democracy both as a rallying point and as a guiding myth. Most of us were reared and educated with the idea that “Democracy is the rule of the people”, even though in practicality that is simply not true. In the area of guiding mythology though, that particular myth has been used time and again, to justify many evils and sometimes even promote good.
In realistically looking at our country and Democracy, as with much else in life, I believe context is everything. The American Revolution was fostered by the wealthiest people in this country, who initiated it because they were economically and socially stifled by the rule of a Monarchic Empire. They were highly sophisticated and intelligent men, whose charisma and standing in their particular States, was unquestioned. They used the promise of a “free republic”, end to tyranny and even the inclusion of the populace into decision-making, to rally popular support. That support was far from universal, but nevertheless those we call the “Founding Fathers” prevailed. When I first learned America History my particular hero was the radical Samuel Adams. It always seemed curious to me that after the Revolution his role in the body politic became obscure. As my knowledge of history grew I came to realize that my hero was far too much a threat to the interests of the Founding Fathers, to be allowed a role in the Constitution and the governance of this new country.
The exclusion of Sam Adams and others of his radical ilk is the proof that this was not to be a country where the common people would have ultimate power over their government. The Constitution makes no mention of Democracy; it is a document that creates a particular type of Republic, where the power rests in the hands of those of wealth and property. It is nevertheless a magnificent document that was unprecedented for its time and well into the future, even today. Democracy, however, was the myth used to convince the masses to love and support their country. It has been used as mentioned to justify war and foreign interventions. The supposed protection of Democracy has even been used in the Patriot Act to actually threaten most American’s constitutionally granted freedoms.
When William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review and PBS fame first became prominent in the 1950’s, he was roundly chastised for insisting that our Country was a Republic, not a Democracy. In other words, Buckley, who in general I have no respect for, was correctly denying the unifying myth of our country. In the process of that denial and its effect on conservative thinking, it was seen at the time as scandalous. I think that the idea of the United States being a Democracy is a myth that needs to be de-mythologized. I believe, however, in the idea of the need for the populace to have a greater say in the processes that govern us. I’m tired of the oligarchy that has always ruled our country for its benefit and the citizens’ distress. A large part of the seeming legitimacy of that rule is the myth that we are a democratic society. To even begin to achieve this power for the people, we must educate us all on the real state of affairs and try to proceed with reality and not myth.
What do you the reader think about this and what are your preferences for how this country should be run?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
I must apologize to you readers since from your comments I see that the issue I was trying to raise was unclear and the responsibilty for that falls squarely on my shoulders. I wasn’t arguing in favor of a particular governmental set up, nor was I arguing in favor of direct democracy, which would be a faulty form of government and far too unwieldy to use today. Also I wasn’t criticizing the Constitution because with its faults it has served us well.
What I was trying to point out was that the entire concept of what democracy is remains a matter of dispute, yet the notion of democracy has been used as a myth, sometimes justifying disasterous courses for our country, especially in foreign policy. Our myth of American democracy is that the people rule, which has never been the case. I believe that this myth has been used to lull most of us into the belief that we as “the people” really have the power. My belief is that for real change to take place we must be able to see beyond the guiding mythology of our country, to understand how things really work. By presenting varied views of what the term democracy means I was hoping to elicit how readers here personally defined democracy. I missed the mark.
Otteray:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, high technology is not always the best answer to a problem. There are so many ways to hack a software program that can run these voting machines, which seem to be bug ridden, that it can take weeks or months after the election to reverse engineer them and find if they were compromised.
On the other hand it is difficult to forge paper ballots if a very controlled environment is maintained.
Personally, I don’t see why there is this need for electronic voting machines. If it takes two extra hours to manually count votes so what??? I dont’t see this as being a prohibitive working environment.
for the amount of expense of an electonic voting machine and considering that most election counting officials are volunteers, economically I don’t see why money is wasted on these proported labor saving devices when the counting of the votes is of minimal cost.
Maybe the afghani’s had something by painting the finger purple after voting.
From article: “The exclusion of Sam Adams and others of his radical ilk is the proof that this was not to be a country where the common people would have ultimate power over their government. The Constitution makes no mention of Democracy; it is a document that creates a particular type of Republic, where the power rests in the hands of those of wealth and property.”
****
The Constitution built in a Senate appointed by state legislators as a brake on the House. The desire to control and usurp the authority of the rabble was built in. The Electoral college, while it has outlived its usefulness as explained by AY still adds an extra layer of control on the choices of the citizenry.
If we wanted a direct democracy or even a representative democracy with substantial voter responsiveness then the Electoral College and the Senate would have to go.
Considering the Republican base I’m not inclined to call for their dissolution just yet.
I went to a condominium annual meeting today. The Board recounted what they did all year long. They had to plan and make decisions almost every day about how to fix things and run the place. If I lived in a commune that would be more like democracy. I would have to decide along with all the rest of the freaks living there what color paint to paint the door with and how much to pay the guy who fixed the mailbox. I would not have time for my other life. So that is why I like representative democracy. I vote for a rep who does the right thing. If he doesnt then we vote em out.
Great post Mike…..
Dredd…. To say that Madison is the father of the constitution is an understatement…… From what I’ve read he was very much disliked and hated for his views….. he had a tendency to rub people the wrong way….. he was a better thinker than people person….. now Franklin…. very much liked and trusted…..but a known drunk and womanizer….. had the gift of people pleasing……. he was able to sell the native americans a bill of goods that in essence deprived them of life, liberty and property….
OS….. the Electorial College at one time served a very valuable purpose….. If you recall the ballots had to be certified by a certain date….. if i recall the office of president was filled in late march or early april for many years…. today, with the modern technology…. there is not much use for it…. if you really think about it…..its really an extension of proxy voting….. you allow someone to cast your votes lawfully…… in the republican from of government that we have today…. its out lived its usefulness…..
The problem with a true democracy is demogods. Sief Heil. Hitler was elected. Our founders wanted elites to ve able to vore. In the South there is still a strong interest by elites to keep the poor white trash from voting and certainly any blacks. I notice that newspapers in the South do not give out information as to where the polling places are and when they open or how to vote early or by mail. The same newspaper spends a lot of space showing mugshots of recently arrested people or long articles about new cultural displays going on in the county. I want to vote for a state rep, a state senator, a Congressman or US Senator who will vote for my interests and the interests of the society, not some schmuck owned by ALEC or Blackwater. That is why I would vote for Jesse Jackson, Jr if he was running in my district because he would vote right. I dont care ifhe has bi polar disease whether grizzly or not. I would not want a straight democracy where we go to townhall and vote for zoning regulations up or down or decide too much in elections. I want Representative Democracy.
The reason is that we have a lousy constitution designed to protect slavery and that we never fully ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Spinning further on election reform: National Executive and Legislative offices and state ditto on same date. All others on odd years, including voter initiatives.
There is no technical hinder to paper receipts checkable against a master paper copy on roll paper enclosed in plastic box for comparison and trace of votes cast.
Othersise much as OS suggested. It has to be regulated.
And gerrymandering stopped. HW Bush got his RepHouse seat that way.
Ah yes, the sixties. Big milestones, big battles.
Nov. 22 1963: Nixon was in town the night before, as was H.W. Bush. JFK’s many enemies celebrated: FED, CIA, Allen Dulles, etc. and no President sat safe since then.
1968
MLKmr was killed, JFK was killed as a Pres Candidate.
McGovern and the left change movement was murdered in Chicago. Only Humphrey, judged senile by most, was left to oppose Nixon
Meanwhile Johnson had sold us to the MIC for his own election.
The dems must rule. Concentration of power leads inevitably to corruption.
Did the dems condemn (!) Socrates, only if mislead by those who opposed truth. We come back inevitably to educations as a öprime need.
I am in the undecided column about the electoral college, but am beginning to lean toward the popular vote. As for elections, I think laws for national elections should be uniform all over. A set number of early voting days and times, and voting precincts having a limit to how many registered voters they serve, which will eliminate bottlenecks and long lines.
All electric voting machines should be required to print a paper ballot and stub for the voter to keep. I fail to understand why Diebold says they have a problem creating a printed copy of ballots. I have been using Diebold ATM machines for years and it never fails to give me an accurate receipt for transactions. A carbon duplicate ballot stub will allow the voter to check immediately to see if their vote has been flipped or manipulated in some way. Those who have a vested interest in caging votes will oppose this, but it needs to be done.
Great job Mike. I agree that we are a Democratic Republic, but we are fast becoming an oligarchical Republic. (if there is such a term) If we do not end the Electoral College and install national voting rights and regulations, We the People will not stand a chance.
Thanks for your work, Mike, great article.
From the Constitution came the essential requirements of how we were to govern and be governed. Then the bill of rights. Then the litigation that arose from the interpretation of the bill of rights. And in a few hundred years, we had the progressions from “life, liberty and property” so that we had a pretty clear line about how to protect anybody’s property and their PROPERTY INTEREST. We had a pretty clear line about how to protect anybody’s liberty and their LIBERTY INTEREST. And in all that time not one case about how to protect their LIFE INTEREST; it does not exist in law except in two forms:
1. A convict on death row has a “residual life interest” in not being killed before his death warrant says he is to be put to death; and
2. In probate law, a person can have a “life interest” in the profits from investment or other use of a corpus of an estate without that beneficiary’s “life interest” giving them ownership of the corpus.
And then, if you look at the case of Dred Scott in Missouri in 1957 and compare it to the case of Joshua DeShaney in Wisconsin in 1987, you find that the property interest a slave-holder had in the life of a slave somehow legally morphed into the liberty interest a parent had in the custody of a child and there was still no life interest, and still, no life interest.
And if you were, for instance, to have the life interest recognized, legitimized and protected for three generations of born children in this country, I bet and believe you could achieve democracy.
Of course, by then, the environment would have been so poisoned that no amount of democracy would be able to establish a livable life on this continent for the 99% anyway…
But still, your article was stimulating, actually exciting I should say, and I am grateful to you for writing it.
Do you really think this is a democracy? It is more like an Oligarchy. Politics, economics, including the tax code and bailout funds, wars, legal precendents (law), and societal informal norms and values are created by the wealthy. Then, it trickles down to the middle and poor classes in the form of how to obey the ‘master’. The wealthy deceive the middle and poor classes by telling them that their ‘votes count.’ At the same time, the economic recession, according to a USA Today article, created more wealth for the wealthy, and increased the economic gap between all classes. This is not a democracy, but an oligarchy, and the only solution is to either obey the master or do like the workers at the Hostess Company: Stage a Strike on the federal government (this almost occurred in 1960s, but MLK,Jr and the civil rights leaders turn it into a picnic, giving us a dream speech, and now we are living in a nightmare).
I believe semantics play a large role in this. Structuraly America is a Republic, culturaly it is viewed generally as a democracy. Denotative definition of democracy means a total governance of the people, such as initiative processes and votes where people make the law and manage all decisions of government. Connotative definition has come to mean somewhat a mixture of this and a republic, where succinctly the elected officials answer to the voters who decide via ballot box.
I would take however the American definition of Democratic Republic to that of North Korea’s any day.
MikeS, Good post. I was taught, and I taught my students that we are a republic. I surmise you still have a problem w/ all the ballot initiatives and that is in part your motivation in writing this. What is causing these inititiatives is the unresponsiveness of elected officials. It’s a rigged game w/ rigged Congressional districts and only 2 choices in a duopoly. Many of these initiatives are pushed by people w/ little political influence. Our govt. is behind the curve on so many isssues, this is their wakeup call. I think it’s a logical and appropriate way to initiate change…beats an armed rebellion.
True Democracy, as established in Ancient Greece was ultimately a failure. As with most popular concepts, it looks good on paper but fails in practice. See the “Dialogues” by Plato, the death of Socrates was the result of democratic mob rule and intolerance of the masses.
A Republic attempts to represent and balance the will of the people while decreasing the danger of the “majority rules” mentality, and a large uninformed or misinformed population, associated with a true democracy.
Unfortunately, these problems are still present in today’s Republic. The quality of representatives is more important to good government than the structure of the government itself.
James Madison is called the Father of the Constitution, and he penned The Bill of Rights.
He also defined one way to determine what form a liberty loving government takes by defining what is dangerous to it:
(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?). To the extent that war is the greatest threat, then our worship of war clearly indicates that we are not now what we were then.
And since you use the word “myth” to connote today’s common understanding of the nature of our governmental essence, then his warning is compliant to that notion:
(ibid). To save our way of government, to resurrect it from the dead, we must stop being a Wartocracy.
An initial reaction:
—well needed. As for the individual so well for society, mythology serves well as inspiration but poorly as a picture of reality to base an action upon.
…so happy to see the name of Samuel Adams, my youth’s hero. Jeffersn to some degree was an aficiionado of the French Revolution, calling for new ones here every 20 years.
—Franklin said “You have a republic, if you can keep it”.
What we have now is not a republic. Not when commerce has taken over the reins centuries ago. “What’s good for the companies is good for my pocket”, say the oligarchs “and that is as it should be”.
—I saw one that I thought might be good to give a try. But displacing the haves from their power positions is going to be tough.
—Let’s not let this veer into a discussion of our ills, but discuss how society should be formed. How we get there is another question.
With most Americans getting their news and talking points from cable outlets who intentionally target market opinion based reporting the “real state of affairs” will always be shaded and obscured. Those cable outlets are owned by the oligarchs and push an agenda. Those agendas in turn divide us into “us and them” thinkers, or more likely parrots, for those agendas. What to do? What to do? The general public, generally speaking, has been led to believe that all of our problems can be solved with a bumper sticker slogan. Thinking for one’s self runs head on into the “us and them” paradigm so that no one wants to be thought of as a “them” anymore, which to me is ironic because it runs counter to the American Myth of the rugged individual. What to do? What to do?
“The Constitution makes no mention of Democracy; it is a document that creates a particular type of Republic, where the power rests in the hands of those of wealth and property. ”
————————————
I differ…..
merriam-webster
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
from USLegal dictionary;
de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
plural de·moc·ra·cies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
The opening words of the Constitution of the United States of America….
‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’
and (in part)Article 1;
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, …..
it’s all about the WE…and not the trickerwee….